[dbigtex56]

musicman, on Friday, July 13th, 2007 @ 9:50am, said:

nothing out of the ordinary to me. particularly when describing a parking garage. i don't think i've ever heard anyone say "wow, that is a GREAT parking garage"

There's a parking garage in Rochester, NY which draws comparisons to Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim museum.

(rather, it did draw comparisons, until its signature ramp abruptly collapsed. )

[sevfiv]

i hope it isn't finished - up close it looks rough.
i can't really see how this one can be salvaged at this point, though

[KinkaidAlum]

Wow.

That is so FUGLY it might need this treatment

[Jeebus]

The lights don't look nearly as intrusive as made out to be. Perhaps an actual picture from a Commerce Tower resident, from their window - so that we can truly feel their pain?

[sevfiv]

yeah - not sure about that, although the lighting was brighter than the picture shows - this was taken about 6:30 pm or so, and it was a bad glare in the sky

[TheNiche]

sevfiv, on Sunday, July 15th, 2007 @ 12:53am, said:

i hope it isn't finished - up close it looks rough.
i can't really see how this one can be salvaged at this point, though

I drove within eyeshot of it late last night. It was all lit up and the lighting was indeed very distracting. The design isn't at all sensitive to its surroundings.

The person that was in the car with me is certainly no architectural afficianado, but she commented how nice it looks being so well lit, contrasting against the darkness of the other buildings. And from a distance at night, with the parking garage as a focus, it does kind of have a cool skeletal look. She wanted to see more parking garages built this way. I had to explain about the lighting being a problem for the Commerce Towers residents for the issue to sink in for her. We also weren't close enough to make out how rough the concrete treatment was.

[Jax]

What's up with the little holes in the concrete on the side of that monstrosity? It sure doesn't look finished to me.

[ricco67]

Wouldn't the garage have a limited lifespan if property values increase, anyway?

While this wouldn't immediately solve the problems of the commerce towers, but wouldn't the land/taxes on that site eventually cost more than the revenue taken in which would make it financially viable to sell the bloody thing?

Yeah? No? maybe? When?

[TheNiche]

ricco67, on Sunday, July 15th, 2007 @ 10:07am, said:

Wouldn't the garage have a limited lifespan if property values increase, anyway?

While this wouldn't immediately solve the problems of the commerce towers, but wouldn't the land/taxes on that site eventually cost more than the revenue taken in which would make it financially viable to sell the bloody thing?

Yeah? No? maybe? When?

Not a chance. At least not for a long, long time. Parking in downtown is tight enough as it is and has been a limiting factor for filling up existing office buildings. This one garage will not end all the parking problems, much less accomodate all the new demand for parking that will surely be created over the course of its functional life. More likely, you'll see more parking garages built to accomodate the growth.

[fernz]

I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I am amazed how little architectural knowledge there is among the members of this forum, especially for a forum about architecture.

Anyone who has seen this building or pictures of it and still thinks that they might add a skin to it has no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete, or even better, architectural concrete.

Even though they did a terrible job with this building, the concrete on the facade, with the little holes and the defined reveals and pattern, is considered a premium finish. Yes, Hines paid a premium for this concrete. It is not raw or unfinished as suggested by some. It is a premium, architectural grade concrete wall. It will not be covered up by any skin (unless Hines holds the contractor responsible for doing such a bad job on the concrete finish and makes them cover it up)

And yes it is plain concrete, it could be much better, but is not half as bad as described previously. I for one think it is much better than that fake stone looking parking garage attached to the Commerce Towers, and better than many parking garages in the city. It is clean, modern, honest and makes no apologies. It is a parking garage than is not disguised as something else, and it reflects the true identity of the city, one that is 100% car centric.

[sevfiv]

some would argue there is a big difference between "architectural knowledge" and the subjectivity of what one thinks is aesthetically pleasing. just because it is a "premium finish" doesn't mean that it doesn't still look raw, or that this attribute is just plain ugly to some.

there is also the issue of the hype associated with this garage pre-construction

and the demolition of the bender/san jacinto hotel that made this parking garage a reality :closedeyes:

to me, it is plain and boring. i would expect nothing less from a parking garage. it is just sad to know what was there before, and to also have the hope that the garage might be different in some way

This post has been edited by sevfiv: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:55 AM

[GovernorAggie]

fernz, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 9:44am, said:

I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I am amazed how little architectural knowledge there is among the members of this forum, especially for a forum about architecture.

Anyone who has seen this building or pictures of it and still thinks that they might add a skin to it has no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete, or even better, architectural concrete.

Even though they did a terrible job with this building, the concrete on the facade, with the little holes and the defined reveals and pattern, is considered a premium finish. Yes, Hines paid a premium for this concrete. It is not raw or unfinished as suggested by some. It is a premium, architectural grade concrete wall. It will not be covered up by any skin (unless Hines holds the contractor responsible for doing such a bad job on the concrete finish and makes them cover it up)

And yes it is plain concrete, it could be much better, but is not half as bad as described previously. I for one think it is much better than that fake stone looking parking garage attached to the Commerce Towers, and better than many parking garages in the city. It is clean, modern, honest and makes no apologies. It is a parking garage than is not disguised as something else, and it reflects the true identity of the city, one that is 100% car centric.

I don't care what it's "supposed" to be, the thing is absolutely terrible. No way around it. I've seen textured concrete and this ain-t it. Architectural concrete would be, imo, more akin to TxDOT's freeway treatments with different design elements (which by the way has a true identity of being 100% car-centric). I hope you're right and it's the contractor that fumbled the ball on this one, because it's just bad. There are areas on the thing that look like smudges or grease spots on paper. They can easily fix this by painting it and adding screens to the open areas with different designs. After all, they blocked in the area under the lowest ramp with cinderblock and painted it white. Why can't they block in the rest?

[Jeebus]

Can anyone post a picture of what was there before?

[Jax]

fernz, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 9:44am, said:

I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I am amazed how little architectural knowledge there is among the members of this forum, especially for a forum about architecture.

Anyone who has seen this building or pictures of it and still thinks that they might add a skin to it has no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete, or even better, architectural concrete.

I think he's talking about me...

I admit it, I'm not an architect, I'm a physicist. I admit that I have no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete or architectural concrete. Sorry for having so little architectural knowledge, and sorry for participating in a forum which is not in my field. When I looked at the concrete with the little holes it looked unfinished. I was merely hoping that somebody would explain to me whether the building was finished or not and what the purpose of those holes was and how likely it was that they might improve on this design. I didn't expect such a hostile reply.

Do people here in general have a problem with non-architects being a part of this forum? Or is it just this guy?

[Trae]

^^Check the first page.

The building is so ugly. They could at least paint it.

[musicman]

Trae, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:18am, said:

The building is so ugly. They could at least paint it.

paint would peel off and just look worse long term. enclosing parking garages also means active ventilation systems which then leads to noise complaints and saying it isn't "energy efficient"

Jax don't take anything personally here. People vent sometimes.

This post has been edited by musicman: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM

[sevfiv]

Jeebus, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:13am, said:

Can anyone post a picture of what was there before?

i'm sure i have something buried somewhere at home
there is a postcard earlier in this thread

there is a small image of the demolition on this page, but the building isn't from the fifties, just the remodel:
http://www.mindsprin...ay/writings.htm

and an article about the demolition (reg. required):
http://www.chron.com...id=2003_3680866

It seemed at one point that Hines was considering using the building, but obviously that didn't happen:

It has been widely speculated that Hines will tear down the San Jacinto building and construct a parking garage, Cook said. But a spokeswoman for Hines said Wednesday the firm is considering several possibilities for the San Jacinto property, but no final decisions have been made.

http://www.chron.com...id=1999_3169526

This post has been edited by sevfiv: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 10:50 AM

[TheNiche]

fernz, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 9:44am, said:

I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I am amazed how little architectural knowledge there is among the members of this forum, especially for a forum about architecture.

Anyone who has seen this building or pictures of it and still thinks that they might add a skin to it has no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete, or even better, architectural concrete.

Even though they did a terrible job with this building, the concrete on the facade, with the little holes and the defined reveals and pattern, is considered a premium finish. Yes, Hines paid a premium for this concrete. It is not raw or unfinished as suggested by some. It is a premium, architectural grade concrete wall. It will not be covered up by any skin (unless Hines holds the contractor responsible for doing such a bad job on the concrete finish and makes them cover it up)

And yes it is plain concrete, it could be much better, but is not half as bad as described previously. I for one think it is much better than that fake stone looking parking garage attached to the Commerce Towers, and better than many parking garages in the city. It is clean, modern, honest and makes no apologies. It is a parking garage than is not disguised as something else, and it reflects the true identity of the city, one that is 100% car centric.

I have to admit, I prefer the minimalist skeletal look of this one to the substantial look of the faux-brick garage serving Camden City Center that a couple of people have cited elsewhere in this forum as the right way to do parking garages, but I can also appreciate violet's issues with the light pollution and the matter about cars' headlights pointing directly into neighboring buildings. If only they'd mitigated those externalities, I'd be giving two thumbs up on this project.

[Trae]

musicman, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:40am, said:

paint would peel off and just look worse long term. enclosing parking garages also means active ventilation systems which then leads to noise complaints and saying it isn't "energy efficient"

Jax don't take anything personally here. People vent sometimes.

Don't they paint those freeways? They still look the same. That paint they are putting on 59 through Sugar Land and I-10 West should stay a long time.

[TheNiche]

Trae, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:49am, said:

Don't they paint those freeways? They still look the same. That paint they are putting on 59 through Sugar Land and I-10 West should stay a long time.

No, it'll peel or fade over time. It's inevitable.

Seems like some of the color treatments might be mixed into the concrete itself, though, and I'd imagine that with occaisional power washing, that might continue looking good for decades to come.

[musicman]

Trae, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:49am, said:

Don't they paint those freeways? They still look the same. That paint they are putting on 59 through Sugar Land and I-10 West should stay a long time.

drive down the gulf freeway...peeling paint galore. a stain would probably be best for concrete. i was on 59 north (cavalcade) this weekend and i couldn't believe how many rust spots were forming on the freeway walls (noticeable from the feeder intersection). Definitely ruins the more designer look.

[Highway6]

As far as the exposed concrete.. I agree with Fernz.. what you see is the intended result. I haven't seen it in person, but I actually like the posted picture of it....
I don't know who the architect is, but they obviously are Tadao Ando fans.


Some pics of Ando's signature concrete style.
The bottom picture is inside the Modern Art Museum of Ft.Worth.

This post has been edited by Highway6: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 11:39 AM

[Jax]

If it were clean looking it might work a bit better but that still doesn't explain the smudges all over it, particularly the lower part. That really adds to the unfinished look. By the way the 3rd photo didn't work.

So to the connoisseur of architectural concrete, it looks fine, but to the layman, I still think the building looks strange and unfinished.

The overall design doesn't bother me too much. It actually reminds me a bit of the El Paso building (if you squint and pretend there are windows).



It's just the "architectural concrete" with smudges look that bothers me as seen in the Highway's photo above.

This post has been edited by Jax: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

[dbigtex56]

Jax, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 11:33am, said:

It's just the "architectural concrete" with smudges look that bothers me as seen in the Highway's photo above.

Ah, a little graffiti will fix that right up.

Any guesses as to how long before that happens?

[Trae]

musicman, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 10:53am, said:

drive down the gulf freeway...peeling paint galore. a stain would probably be best for concrete. i was on 59 north (cavalcade) this weekend and i couldn't believe how many rust spots were forming on the freeway walls (noticeable from the feeder intersection). Definitely ruins the more designer look.

Your right. I have seen I-45 going towards Galveston, and the paint is fading.

[KinkaidAlum]

The garage is neat if you are one for simple utilitarian design. I sometimes appreciate things that don't try to hide what they are truly built for. That said, to place this thing on Main Street in the heart of downtown facing the Metrorail, downtown's most exclusive residential building, the water features in Main Street Square, and just a few blocks away from Macy's and the new Pavilions is very short-sighted.

If any place deserved a "hidden" garage it would have been this lot. I would have appreciated an attempt such as Congress Plaza (serves the courthouses) or the new McGovern Garage (serving the Texas Med Center). The latter's water wall feature would have balanced nicely with the water features in Main Street Square.

[lockmat]

fernz, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 8:44am, said:

I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I am amazed how little architectural knowledge there is among the members of this forum, especially for a forum about architecture.

Anyone who has seen this building or pictures of it and still thinks that they might add a skin to it has no understanding of the significance of what is called exposed concrete, or even better, architectural concrete.

Even though they did a terrible job with this building, the concrete on the facade, with the little holes and the defined reveals and pattern, is considered a premium finish. Yes, Hines paid a premium for this concrete. It is not raw or unfinished as suggested by some. It is a premium, architectural grade concrete wall. It will not be covered up by any skin (unless Hines holds the contractor responsible for doing such a bad job on the concrete finish and makes them cover it up)

And yes it is plain concrete, it could be much better, but is not half as bad as described previously. I for one think it is much better than that fake stone looking parking garage attached to the Commerce Towers, and better than many parking garages in the city. It is clean, modern, honest and makes no apologies. It is a parking garage than is not disguised as something else, and it reflects the true identity of the city, one that is 100% car centric.

I'm more surprised there aren't more architects in this forum. If there are I haven't seen them claim it. But I'm also not surprised of the lack of architectual knowledge, as having an interest in architecture does not require knowledge about it. Beauty doesn't always need to be taught.

And although I'm not any more knowledgable than the next guy, I thought by looking at that picture that the finish may indeed have been the final intentions. But if you look at it, the corners and sharp edges are very pleasing to this eye's beholder. At the same time, unless someone has any knowledge that this type of concrete finish is actually a style, they might hold this technique as ugly. It's funny that a little knowledge of how things are held in regard or supposed to be can change ones opinion, as seen from the response of HAIFers. Opinions aside, I would bet that if most knew this concrete finish was en vogue and respected by architects, their appreciation for it would be different, as well as their reaction.

And if anything, this forum might be change to Houston Development Info Forum as that seems to be the main interest of most here, while the architecture of it is important but still secondary.

This post has been edited by lockmat: Monday, July 16, 2007 at 8:16 PM

[mls1202]

My guess...this parking garage was done on the cheap to serve an immediate need with minimal investment and act as a placeholder. Should the real estate landscape change, it would be fairly easy (in my uneducated opinion) to demolish this for a higher value project.

Maybe I'm deluding myself

[TheNiche]

mls1202, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 9:29pm, said:

My guess...this parking garage was done on the cheap to serve an immediate need with minimal investment and act as a placeholder. Should the real estate landscape change, it would be fairly easy (in my uneducated opinion) to demolish this for a higher value project.

Maybe I'm deluding myself

Nope, this is way too expensive a placeholder, and its value as parking is immense as a stimulant of downtown office demand. If demolished, it would only have to be rebuilt somewhere else.

[GovernorAggie]

TheNiche, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 8:22am, said:

Nope, this is way too expensive a placeholder, and its value as parking is immense as a stimulant of downtown office demand. If demolished, it would only have to be rebuilt somewhere else.

Good point, but does anyone know if it was built strong enough to possibly hold a building in the future?

[violet]

Jeebus, on Sunday, July 15th, 2007 @ 1:13am, said:

The lights don't look nearly as intrusive as made out to be. Perhaps an actual picture from a Commerce Tower resident, from their window - so that we can truly feel their pain?

Since Friday, July 13th, the lights on the roof and half of the parking garage had been shut off after 8pm. The glare that you now see are a fraction of what it was for the first week. It would seem, the collective grumblings of a lot of people had some people listening. Of course, that may all change when the garage is officially opened.

[jt16]

Jax, on Monday, July 16th, 2007 @ 11:33am, said:

If it were clean looking it might work a bit better but that still doesn't explain the smudges all over it, particularly the lower part. That really adds to the unfinished look. By the way the 3rd photo didn't work.

So to the connoisseur of architectural concrete, it looks fine, but to the layman, I still think the building looks strange and unfinished.

The overall design doesn't bother me too much. It actually reminds me a bit of the El Paso building (if you squint and pretend there are windows).



It's just the "architectural concrete" with smudges look that bothers me as seen in the Highway's photo above.

I just got busted at work squinting and staring at this screen.

[dalparadise]

jt16, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 4:37pm, said:

I just got busted at work squinting and staring at this screen.

Any development along the rail line has the potential to be an interesting and constructive addition to Downtown. It just takes a little vision. We often dismiss things too quickly because of an over-zealous desire for Manhattan-style developments.

[mls1202]

Looking at the picture above ^^^, is that street level retail in the bottom right?

[Mister X]

Thanks for posting that photo. I was expecting something much much worse from all the negitive comments. I think you guys prepared me for something so incredibly bad that this garage just couldn't live down to it. Don't get me wrong, it's not pretty, but I can handle this. This sinks into the background at least. It could have been much worse, it could have been ugly AND stood out from a distance. It's so boring, I'm very surprised it's getting this much attention. Must be because of the hype.

[musicman]

dalparadise, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 7:14pm, said:

Any development along the rail line has the potential to be an interesting and constructive addition to Downtown. It just takes a little vision. We often dismiss things too quickly because of an over-zealous desire for Manhattan-style developments.

concur.

[sevfiv]

mls1202, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 9:33pm, said:

Looking at the picture above ^^^, is that street level retail in the bottom right?

yes - here is a view from main and walker:

Mister X, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 9:52pm, said:

Thanks for posting that photo. I was expecting something much much worse from all the negitive comments.

imo, on the main street side it actually blends a little because of Battelstein's, but on the Travis side not so much (next to 801 Travis (?))

[Jeebus]

dalparadise, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 7:14pm, said:

We often dismiss things too quickly because of an over-zealous desire for Manhattan-style developments.

I agree completely. I feel as Houstonians we are still in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage of urban planning & development. Hey, we got a nine-story garage on the downtown Main St. corridor. This will only promote more growth for downtown.

Mister X, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 9:52pm, said:

Thanks for posting that photo. I was expecting something much much worse from all the negitive comments. I think you guys prepared me for something so incredibly bad that this garage just couldn't live down to it. Don't get me wrong, it's not pretty, but I can handle this. This sinks into the background at least. It could have been much worse, it could have been ugly AND stood out from a distance. It's so boring, I'm very surprised it's getting this much attention. Must be because of the hype.

I again agree that the negative hype definately softened the blow for what I was ultimately expecting. It honestly doesn't look that bad. We're going to be in denial if we think for whatever reason we could redevelop downtown with out at least a handful or so of these popping up before its all said & done.

This post has been edited by Jeebus: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 10:24 PM

[violet]

Mister X, on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 @ 9:52pm, said:

Thanks for posting that photo. I was expecting something much much worse from all the negitive comments. I think you guys prepared me for something so incredibly bad that this garage just couldn't live down to it. Don't get me wrong, it's not pretty, but I can handle this. This sinks into the background at least. It could have been much worse, it could have been ugly AND stood out from a distance. It's so boring, I'm very surprised it's getting this much attention. Must be because of the hype.

Possible, but I don't know if the photos can really translate this garage. It's symmetrical, parallel, and functional....it's a giant parking garage. However, notice that there is very little concrete b/w the floor and ceiling...meaning that when this is used, all that will really be seen are the entirety of the cars. The retaining wires are all that comes b/w us and them. Also, try viewing this thing at night. There is no blending, anywhere...the lights are intrusive, and ridiculously bright. It looks really out of place when viewed next to the Esperson.

[Jax]

Nobody expected a nice parking garage until Hines said it would be "architecturally significant", what's what caused all of the hype. It's not like people would be talking about just any parking garage. I agree that at least it has retail. Now let's see how long it takes to fill that retail in with something nice.

[GovernorAggie]

It kinda makes me think "U.S.S.R"

[Trae]

Even SA can get a nice looking parking garage:



It is the one under construction.

This post has been edited by Trae: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM

[musicman]

Trae, on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 @ 10:58am, said:

Even SA can get a nice looking parking garage:

It is the one under construction.

Even SA? that doesn't look nice either IMO.

[Deut28Thirteen]

^we do have some nice ones this is in the TMC.

[musicman]

Deut28Thirteen, on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 @ 11:31am, said:

^we do have some nice ones this is in the TMC.

i like the one with the double water wall in TMC.

[MidtownCoog]

SA might have a "nice" parking garage, but that Drury Plaza Hotel sign kills everything. So tacky.

[Jeebus]

MidtownCoog, on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 @ 11:52am, said:

SA might have a "nice" parking garage, but that Drury Plaza Hotel sign kills everything. So tacky.

Exactly. It's subjectively tit-for-tat when it comes to judging each city's ability to build architecturally pleasing environments.

[Jax]

I noticed that the Mosaic rental center is made out of this same type of concrete, but it appears to have been painted (or stained?) a uniform grey color and it actually looks kind of nice and very clean. I wish I had a photo to show the comparison, but when I look at this, it makes me almost sure that they are going to at least paint it or do something with the garage on main, especially with the new tower going up across the street.



Is there any more news from the residents of Commerce Towers? Have they changed anything lately?

This post has been edited by Jax: Friday, July 27, 2007 at 11:04 AM